Abstract
What happens when a self-styled humanitarian superpower receives external human rights-based criticism? To what extent has the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) influenced Norwegian prisons and Norwegian penal policy and jurisprudence? How has this criticism been understood, what has been the response and what have been the effects at the practical level—if any? In our chapter, we discuss Norwegian self-perception and attitudes toward human rights and penal policy. Then we briefly describe the influence of the ECHR in Norway before we discuss the influence of CPT visits. Concerning CPT, we draw attention to two specific cases in particular: the case of pre-trial solitary confinement and the country’s single high-security immigration detention centre.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Supreme Court verdict, Rt. 1974 p. 935.
- 2.
- 3.
Two cases concerning the right to adversarial proceedings (Botten v. Norway, App. No. 16206/90, 19 February 1996; Kaste and Mathiesen v. Norway, App. No. 18885/04 and 21166/04, 9 November 2006—both violations). One case concerning the right to trial within reasonable time (Beck v. Norway, App. No. 26390/95, 26 June 2001—no violation). Six cases concerning the presumption of innocence (Hammern v. Norway, App. No. 30287/96, 11 February 2003; O. v. Norway, App. No. 29327/95, 11 February 2003; Ringvold v. Norway, App. No. 34964/97, 11 February 2003; Y. v. Norway, App. No. 56568/00, 11 February 2003; Orr v. Norway, App. No. 31283/04, 15 May 2008; N.A. v. Norway, App. No. 27473/11, 18 December 2014—four violations, two non-violations). Three cases concerning art. 6 and the impartiality of judges (Ekeberg and others v. Norway, App. No. 11106/04, 11108/04, 11116/04, 11311/04 and 13276/04, 31 July 2007; Kristiansen v. Norway, App. No. 1176/10, 17 December 2015; Procedo Capital Corporation v. Norway, App. No. 3338/05, 24 September 2009—two violations, one non-violation).
- 4.
Supreme Court decision Rt. 2000s. 996.
- 5.
Supreme Court decisions: Rt. 2003s. 1100—disciplinary sanctions in prison not a violation of double jeopardy rule in ECHR P7-4. Rt 2005 s. 140—conditions in high-security wing not a violation of art. 3. Rt. 2011s. 347—retroactive amendments of law concerning conditional release no violation of art. 7. Rt. 2015s. 921—standard of evidence concerning decision transferring prisoner from an open prison to a security prison, no violation of art. 6.
- 6.
Published decisions: TOSLO-2002-1580—placement in high-security wing not a violation of art. 3. TTRON-2006-148273, no violation of art. 8 and right to family. LG-2007-83941, disciplinary sanctions in prison not a violation of double jeopardy rule in ECHR P7-4.
- 7.
Court decision Rt. 2010s. 1313.
- 8.
Act on Penal Procedure § 186a.
- 9.
The Scandinavian/Nordic exceptionalism thesis has been discussed extensively, see inter alia Andersson (2011), Barker (2012), Bruhn et al. (2011), Johnsen and Granheim (2011), Mathiesen (2011), Pratt and Eriksson (2011), Shammas (2014), P.S. Smith (2011b), Ugelvik and Ugelvik (2013) and Ugelvik (2011a). Even the critics would usually agree that newly built Norwegian prisons are comparatively good, materially speaking.
- 10.
The Norwegian National Preventive Mechanism against Torture and Ill-treatment was established in 2013 as a consequence of Norway finally adopting the Optional Protocol (OPCAT ) to the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Preventive Mechanism (‘Forebyggingsenheten’) is part of the Norwegian Ombudsman for civil affairs. As the ombudsman’s activity has always been judicial and reactive (reacting on complaints). Taking on a new role as a preventive non-judicial mechanism therefore posed a challenge. But being aware of this new mission, and organizing the preventive mechanism as a separate unit within the ombudsman’s office, the preventive mechanism has proved itself to be a great success, producing thorough inspection reports often creating a basis for public debate.
- 11.
Cf CPT/Inf(94)11, CPT/Inf(97)11, CPT/Inf(2000)15, CPT/Inf(2006)14. For a discussion of the CPT’s findings on this topic for its 2011visit to Norway (CPT/Inf(2011)33), see also in extenso Horn (2017: 124).
- 12.
CPT/Inf(2006)14, Human Rights Committee (2006), Committee Against Torture (2008), Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (2007), Human Rights Committee (2011), Committee Against Torture (2012). The statistics that were discussed with respect to the 2011visit (CPT/Inf(2011)33) are commented upon in Horn (2017: 124).
- 13.
In 2014, only 36 remand prisoners (0.7 %) were subjected to solitary confinement in Denmark, cf. letter from the Danish General Prosecutor to the Department of justice of 9 July 2015.
- 14.
Parliament decision, 10 June 2014, cf. Innst. 165L (2013–2014).
- 15.
Cf inter alia the Norwegian Constitution section 92.
- 16.
Cf the annual report for 2015 of the National Institution for Human Rights (an entity established by the Parliament itself and reporting directly to Parliament) as well as inter alia the report from the National Preventative body under OPCAT (cf. note 10) concerning the police detention cells in Bergen (May 2016).
Literature
Andersson, R. 2011. A Blessing in Disguise: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Diagnosis and Swedish Correctional Treatment Policy in the Twenty-First Century. In Penal Exceptionalism? Nordic Prison Policy and Practice, ed. T. Ugelvik and J. Dullum. London: Routledge.
Barker, V. 2012. Nordic Exceptionalism Revisited: Explaining the Paradox of a Janus-Faced Penal Regime. Theoretical Criminology 17 (1): 5–25.
Bronebakk, K.B. 2012. Hvis Det Var Mitt Barn. In Festskrift Til Inger Marie Fridhov, ed. Y. Hammerlin and B. Johnsen. Oslo: KRUS.
Bruhn, A., O. Lindberg, and P.-Å. Nylander. 2011. A Harsher Prison Climate and a Cultural Heritage Working Against It: Subcultural Divisions Among Prison Officers. In Penal Exceptionalism? Nordic Prison Policy and Practice, ed. T. Ugelvik and J. Dullum. London: Routledge.
Christie, N. 1970. Modeller for Fengselsorganisasjonen. In I Stedet for Fengsel, ed. R. Østensen. Oslo: Pax.
———. 2007. Limits to Pain. Eugene: Wipf & Stock.
Committee Against Torture. 2008. Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 19 of the Convention. Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee Against Torture, Norway. CAT/C/NOR/CO/5, February 5.
———. 2012. Concluding Observations on the Combined Sixth and Seventh Periodic Reports of Norway, Adopted by the Committee at Its Forty-Ninth Session (29 October to 23 November 2012). CAT/C/NOR/CO/6–7, December 13.
Evans, M.D., and R. Morgan. 1998. Preventing Torture. A Study of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Fridhov, I.M. 2013. Norge: Tilbakeføringsgarantien Og Forvaltningssamarbeid. In Løsladelse: Planlægning Og Samarbejde I Danmark, Norge Og Sverige, ed. A. Storgaard. Aarhus: Nordisk Samarbejdsråd for Kriminologi.
Horn, T. 2017. Fullstendig isolasjon ved risiko for bevisforspillelse: Rettspolitiske vurderinger. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Human Rights Committee. 2006. Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 40 of the Covenant. Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, Norway. CCPR/C/NOR/CO/5, April 25.
———. 2011. Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 40 of the Covenant. Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, Norway. CCPR/C/NOR/CO/6, November 18.
Johnsen, B., and P.K. Granheim. 2011. Prison Size and the Quality of Life in Norwegian Closed Prisons in Late Modernity. In Penal Exceptionalism? Nordic Prison Policy and Practice, ed. T. Ugelvik and J. Dullum. London: Routledge.
Mathiesen, T. 2011. Scandinavian Exceptionalism in Penal Matters: Reality or Wishful Thinking? In Penal Exceptionalism? Nordic Prison Policy and Practice, ed. T. Ugelvik and J. Dullum. London: Routledge.
MoJ. 2008. Straff Som Virker – Mindre Kriminalitet – Tryggere Samfunn. St.meld. nr. 37 (2007–2008). Oslo: Ministry of Justice and the Police.
Morgan, R., and M. Evans. 2002. Combating Torture in Europe. The Work and Standards of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Pratt, J. 2008a. Scandinavian Exceptionalism in an Era of Penal Excess, Part I: The Nature and Roots of Scandinavian Exceptionalism. British Journal of Criminology 48 (2): 119–137.
———. 2008b. Scandinavian Exceptionalism in an Era of Penal Excess, Part II: Does Scandinavian Exceptionalism Have a Future? British Journal of Criminology 48 (3): 275–292.
Pratt, J., and A. Eriksson. 2011. In Defence of Scandinavian Exceptionalism. In Penal Exceptionalism? Nordic Prison Policy and Practice, ed. T. Ugelvik and J. Dullum. London: Routledge.
———. 2012. Contrasts in Punishment: An Explanation of Anglophone Excess and Nordic Exceptionalism. London: Routledge.
Shammas, V.L. 2014. The Pains of Freedom: Assessing the Ambiguity of Scandinavian Penal Exceptionalism on Norway’s Prison Island. Punishment and Society 16 (1): 104–123.
Sivilombudsmannen. 2015. Besøksrapport: Politiets utlendingsinternat på Trandum 19–21 mai 2015. Oslo: Sivilombudsmannen.
Smith, E. 2011a. Vil de som er imot, rekke opp hånden? Om menneskerettigheter, (annen) rett og demokrati. Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift, 49–60.
Smith, P.S. 2011b. A Critical Look at Scandinavian Exceptionalism: Welfare State Theories, Penal Populism, and Prison Conditions in Denmark and Scandinavia. In Penal Exceptionalism? Nordic Prison Policy and Practice, ed. T. Ugelvik and J. Dullum. London: Routledge.
Smith, P.S., and T. Ugelvik. 2017. Introduction: Punishment, Welfare and Prison History in Scandinavia. In Scandinavian Penal History, Culture and Prison Practice: Embraces by the Welfare State? ed. P.S. Smith and T. Ugelvik. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Strand, V.B. 2009. Forskjellsbehandling på grunn av religion og livssyn ved ansettelser i tros- og livssynssamfunn. In Arbeid og rett. Festskrift til Henning Jakhellns 70-årsdag, ed. V.B. Strand and H. Aune. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Tvedt, T. 2006. Utviklingshjelp, Utenrikspolitikk Og Den Norske Modellen. Historisk tidsskrift 85 (1): 59–85.
Ugelvik, T. 2011a. The Dark Side of a Culture of Equality: Reimagining Communities in a Norwegian Remand Prison. In Penal exceptionalism? Nordic prison policy and practice, ed. T. Ugelvik and J. Dullum. London: Routledge.
———. 2011b. Hva Er Et Fengsel?: En Analyse Av Manualen Til En Sosial Teknologi. Retfærd 34 (1): 85–100.
———. 2013. Hvem Er Maria Amelie? Fortellinger Om Ulovlighet. In Krimmigrasjon? Den Nye Kontrollen Av De Fremmede, ed. N.B. Johansen, T. Ugelvik, and K.F. Aas. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Ugelvik, S., and T. Ugelvik. 2013. Immigration Control in Ultima Thule: Detention and Exclusion, Norwegian Style. European Journal of Criminology 10 (6): 709–724.
Wasvik, M. 2015. Trandum Utlendingsinternat: En Historie Om Overgrep Og Skandaler. Radikal Portal. http://radikalportal.no/2015/04/22/trandum-utlendingsinternat-og-historien-om-overgrep-og-skandaler/. Accessed 25 Aug 2016.
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. 2007. Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Addendum, Mission to Norway. A/HRC/7/4/Add.2, October 11.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Horn, T., Ugelvik, T. (2017). Best in Class? Norwegian Incarceration and the Pragmatic Production of Legitimacy. In: Daems, T., Robert, L. (eds) Europe in Prisons. Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62250-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62250-7_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62249-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62250-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)